Skip to main content

About your Search

English 103
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 103 (some duplicates have been removed)
contract and we have agreed on a salary, which is the same as that that mr. harrington is being paid. and it's probably the shortest, simplest, easiest to understand extract that i have seen for any purpose. any comments or questions from the commission? >> yes, you said 5 year? >> yes. >> it says 2015 here. 3 years. >> it should not. that's an error. >> so, i don't know if i have the final version: >> i wasn't involved in the contract negotiations, but, i presume the 5 years relate to the provietions in section 5 that provides for an extension to 2017 after certain intervening events. but, because i wasn't involved, i'm assuming harlan and beth [inaudible]. reviewed and understood that. >> that is not what we agreed to. we agreed to a 5 year term with a 2 year opener, which gives us the option of making adjustments depending on the n aa contract. >> the only thing about that, if you read section 5 where it says if, by september 22015,... (reading). such and such, so, that language doesn't make any sense if this is not a reappointment. >> no, this is very wrong. [laughter] do
additional questions. >> supervisor wiener: orc. okay. also to the puc. >> president chiu: mr. harrington. >> supervisor wiener: there's been some discussion about ultimately a local build-out being financed in some way by the revenues from the cca, whether it's with cash, or through bonding. and supervisor farrell referred to a concern that it just simply would not generate enough cash to be able to bond around it. so if you could respond to that. >> sure, supervisor. when you're trying to go out and build a major facility to produce power, the normal thing to do is to go out and borrow the money, borrow enough money to pay your debt service while constructing the facility and then when the facility is put in place, that revenue that then now generates by selling that power pays back the bonds. so that's the process for it. the idea would be that, as we work through the process, by having cca out there, by having a customer base, by having a revenue base, we become believable to bond rating agencies and those that might lend us the money. that's why you need the base but that base subjec
to highlight what mr. harrington has stated, the fact that we are seeing potentially 10 times efficiency in how we are investing our public dollars and being able to reduce carbon emissions, that is a very notable fact. i think the fact that we are going to be providing choice to consumers, we -- none of us can predict exactly how this program will go but i think it will drive the market, both the private sector as well as what we're doing with city government, to improve our level of efficiencies. i did have concern some months ago about exactly how we were thinking about the opt-out provisions but i think the changes that have been made, the six months of education that we are going to be asking the puc to consider, the fact that we're talking about a de minimus $5 amount if someone wants to opt out, these are i think very positive changes. and i do want to say, in echoing what supervisor kim had stated before, my major concern in recent weeks have been around low income residents, around monolingual residents, around seniors, certainly at last week's hearing i heard loud and clear from my te
. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. mr. harrington, thank you very much for your presentation. one of the things that has been floating around in the last day or so is this idea that, even though we've spent so many years working on this that somehow we should hold off and continue this, maybe we can get a better deal, maybe there are ways in which we can make this program better. my understanding, having deferred to the great work of the puc, is that this is as good a program as we're going to get, and that in terms of the -- the terms of this agreement that i don't necessarily see how a continuance makes this any better i'm wondering if you have any thoughts about that. >> sure, supervisor. obviously a continuance is a policy call. i understand that. the issues people have, like this is an opt out program, that is state law. a continuance will not change state law. if you're looking for us to try to find another vendor, been there, done that, several times. the only group that's available is shell. the only group that was available to marine t
was going to ask mr. harrington to comment, something called california's community solar program and they also point to how public agencies in san mateo and other countries ar -- counties, we wat local jobs here and to build it up so we have more jobs that are green jobs that we're creating as well. this is a step forward divardz that. but if you could respond to what ibew is saying that would be helpful. >> supervisor, we would supportny program to create and generate green power wherever it might be. when we say local we are not just saying in san francisco. obviously we have watersheds in san mateo and santa clara that are useful for solar panels and we will be happy to partner with whatever groups of people that want to create jobs in the local economy of the bay area and be able to build those kind of projects. >> supervisor mar: again, thank you for putting the best possible contract together. i know we were sitting down together over the past couple of years as this moved forward so i know a lot of thought with supervisor campos' leadership has gone forward but without you
communities. i have a couple of questions for mr. harrington, if i may. and by the way, i want to just thank you for your leadership on this. i know that it was probably just a year ago that you were taking heated for not moving forward the cca program fast enough. i understand in recent weeks you've taken heat for moving the cca program too fast. so thank you for that. i also know this is your last week. and i had an opportunity some months ago to help present a lifetime achievement award to you but you've really done yeoman's work and i think this is a testament to what you have been trying to achieve in government over your decades of service. but my first question is, i heard from constituents of mine in chinatown and throughout the city that, in neighborhoods like the one in the heart of my district, where, as you indicated, the polling showed that there was very little or less support for this program than in others, i wanted to understand how that neighborhood and others would be treated in the roll out of this program. it's my understanding that because of the marketing that -- the m
. and i wanted to ask, mr. harrington, have you had a chance to see these amendments? i think many of our colleagues would like to get your sense of a feedback on the various amendments, if you've had a chance. >> i received them a few minutes ago and had a chance to look quickly at them if you'd like a quick response. >> president chiu: yes. >> with regard to the one that says the clean power ratepayers will begin recovering the reserves required for the program since there is no specific requirement for how much that would be i think as we look at the raitsd w rates we ha chance to say let's see how far we can get in the four years. that makes sense so we can do it. the other one does cause quite a bit more heartburn. it sounds like what we're asking to do is start a program with opting in, hoping for the best, not knowing whether it's going to work. i don't know how i keep a contract with shell not knowing how much power they're going to provide. it has a lot of issues that i don't know how it actually works, is the concern there. but maybe as the discussion happens it might be clearer
. thank you, mr. harrington. >> supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: mr. harrington, i must applaud you. with all your years in the city i don't think you've kicked up this much dust. no pun intended. >> are we on the 3:30 item or not? >> supervisor cohen: not yet. you have certainly found a way to exit your public service. and on what i think is a high note. and i want to encourage you, since you are going to be looking at your retirement, you will have some downtime, maybe you will run for office, and maybe you can work out this opt-out issue that we're all in agreement of. you certainly know a lot about it. this particular -- not situation, but this matter, i spent a significant amount of time listening to all sides of perspectives on this issue. i want to thank again all those involved in this process, even those members that have been blogging and writing about it, keeping our public informed. i believe that -- we have a unique conundrum here and the challenges as we address community choice aggregation. and just to put a little historical context on this conversation, historically
're all in trouble. i would like to thank you for from the bottom of my heart. thank you mr. harrington. we would like to honor you with the special plaque,. donna is going to read it. it reads as such, (reading from plaque. >> this comem raive flag is awarded to you regarding yourout standing leadership, project, job training program,. your support has affordsed opportunities to graduates of preapprenticeship programs and helped changed lives of any economically disadvantaged rez tends. puc s*efszs chlg alameda, san francisco ap ri. san francisco count i city build acadly, san juak=quin, san mateo s job trainnig program. this is for you. [applause] >> thank you. i don't get by with without a shake: >> [inaudible]. >> i puc stead build, almost 3 years ago, city build brought me over, and american ... i had the great privilege of working on the puc buildings. we put a great number of san francisco red dents to work. it was very, very, gratifying for the individuals here in san francisco who needed that work. in the last 2 years or last year, i i have been working in the regent,
remarks, and again i want to thank mr. harrington. i have had the honor and the privilege to work with you in the last few years. and as far as i'm concerned you truly are the gold standard of what it means to be a public servant. and the fact that you have been involved i think gives this program the credibility that it needs. and so i want to thank you. mr. harrington. >> thank you very much. ed harrington general manager sf public utilities commission. i know we spent a lot of time last week in the budget committee. i was asked to give a brief overview to make sure you were aware of what was in the program. i'm joined by barbara hale and todd rydstrom our cfo and assistant general manager for finance and business, if you have questions of any of us. i want to go through a quick introduction, what the city goals are, the key program components, what the liabilities may be and ratepayer impacts. san francisco has ambitious climate goals and so right now we're looking and saying we have a goal to achieve greenhouse -- electric system by 2030, reducing carbon emissions by 80% from 1990 leve
'll comment first and appreciate mr. harrington's comments. but from my perspective, we're doing just the opposite. we're making assumptions based upon an opt-out rate from an initial marketing group that we're able to set rates from. so that is a different way of approaching it and putting again the onus on individuals and consumers that we think are going to be the ones paying attention here. and that is exactly the issue that i have with the opt-out program, that we're already opting out low income folks, we're talking about vulnerability of seniors and we talk about people that will be vulnerable not just the average person not paying attention. it's literally running an excel market here. therefore we're going to be able to lock in energy rates. that to me is not an excuse or reason to go with that approach as opposed to saying even if you have to talk longer with folks and say, hey, we're going to come to you first, we want indication would you be interested in this, we'll come back to you with a rate, they can market to those folks. but just because we're not going to have a ra
and we will build local green energy but that is not the case. mr. harrington and i talked about it last week in the committee meetings. there are no numbers. it's an unknown right now but it is known you have to increase rates higher than what it is today and that's what we need to take into consideration. it's misleading at best to say this program today will create local green energy because that is not the cause. in any case for me the biggest issue has been this opt out nature of this program. we've been talking with our city attorney over the last week. i do wish we had more time to iron this out but it is what it is. and i know there's momentum to make a decision here today. but to create a program where we know there is some voluntary nature of people subscribing to this where they will -- it is not an opt in program, we can't avoid the opt out nature of this but where we have a much better idea where folks want to participate in this program this is why i've added the resolution -- amendment to the resolution, that supervisor chu alluded to earlier, adding to page 5 a resolution
that -- mr. harrington is retiring on thursday. you know, frankly, to me, it seems like for this specific issue, because the opt-out-opt-in issue has been at heart of so much of the public debate about this that it seems to me that we should figure out if it is feasible. and if it it is feasible, maybe it's not, maybe it is, maybe this language here is the right language, or maybe it can be flushed out in a different way that addresses some of those concerns. it makes me uncomfortable that we, as a board, are voting on whether to have this, which is a significant thing, based on this sort of somewhat seat of the pants discussion. and so, colleagues, i know this is probably not -- i have no idea -- maybe i'll -- be the only vote for this but i think we should continue this one week so that issue can be worked out definitively. because i just don't think we're in a position to address that in a thoughtful way right now, based on the discussion we've had so far. and that's just my honest and candid take on this particular, very central and important issue. >> president chiu: supervisor wiene
for the reasons that mr. harrington outlined, out of deference to him, and in their estimation their ability to make sure that this program is successful, i will respectfully oppose the first two of the amendments introduced by my colleagues. and with respect to the third amendment, which deals with the reserve for the reasons that mr. harrington indicated, i will be supporting that amendment. and so i will be urging my colleagues to vote no on the first two amendments by supervisors farrell and chu, but yes on the third. and with respect to the amendments that were introduced by supervisor kim, president david chiu, supervisor cohen, supervisor mar, i will be strongly supporting those amendments. i think that the add to the program and address some of the concerns that have been outlined. and, you know, a lot has been said about the viability of this program, a lot of questions about whether or not the numbers add up, some questions about protecting consumers. i have a lot of respect for my good friend, supervisor farrell. i just respectfully have a different take. i actually think that, to
congratulations, job well done, mr. harrington. i did not get to know you, but i heard good things about you. congratulations. i am here today as one of the community representatives, resident, long time, 60 years, i am saddened to say because my community is in the same condition it has been -- actually, it is worse than it was. nothing has changed in the last 40 years. we are requesting that committee be set of tools. the serious issues and concerns -- be set up to hear the serious concerns. and show that the san francisco public utilities commission is sensitive to our concerns. we are requesting a dedicated committee because we cannot express the seriousness of our situation in two minutes in public comment. no matter what you have been told, no matter what you have heard, no matter who you have met with behind closed doors. i say that with all due respect. we do know how people operate. we are looking to help our community and the light of day was full transparency, asking you to show good faith by creating a committee to work with us. we are the largest district in san francisco. we ha
? supervisor composure. >> thank you. i have a question for mr. harrington, since you are up there. my apologies. we heard from the economist and the report about the 95 jobs that apparently are going to be lost a year. do you have any thoughts about, you know, the issue of job loss? i honestly -- i understand where mr. -- where the economist is coming from. i don't know that i necessarily agree with that. but i'm wondering what your thoughts are on that issue. >> sure, supervisor. i guess it is an economic model. economic models do things that are important. to take an analogy, let's talk about tomatos. they are good now, ripe, wonderful. you can go to safeway and buy a tomato for a certain price or go to the farmer's market and pay probably a higher price there are no tomato farms in san francisco. if you buy a tomato from a farmer down there probably that money is going out of the city. reducing money spent in san francisco. if you ran that through this model it would reduce jobs in san francisco. so if you are serious about this, then you shouldn't issue a permit to have a farmer's
you very much, madam chair. i understand the point. i think what mr. harrington said is true. we are getting a big bang for the buck. the residents are close to 100 million and 6,000 plus. i do think maybe that is a conversation as the program progresses we can revisit. i think that is something we can always revisit. starting out i don't know if that is necessarily is best approach, thank you. >> starting out we clearly need to put city money up front because it has to be in the bank. it is how fast we pay ourselves back. >> great. i think there is a value to -- if we are saying that we want to sort of remove the risk, we want to have the program be self-sufficient, we want that this is a choice, that people choose to create this program, they choose the premium to have green energy. you know, it makes sense they pay for the reserve that is there as well. that would free up the funding for the city to invest in the infrastructure we need as well for the rest of -- >> see your point, supervisor. >> the rest of the puc's operations. why don't we go to office of economic analysis.
to our consumers and do so in a way that protects the liability of the city. with that, mr. harrington. >> supervisor campos, do you want to briefly explain the substance of the amendments? >> yes, thank you. >> we will take that up after public comment. just make sure we are aware of what they are. >> one of the key changes is it makes it clear that it delegates the authority to the general manager of the puc to make any non-material amendments that may be required, technical amendments that may be required to finalize the contract. the language basically is added to strengthen to the extent it is legally possible the commitment to a long-term build-out. we believed that the initial language did that, but to the extent that ceqa and other laws allow us to strengten that language, that is the intent of many of the changes. they are not substantive. it is simply a matter of emphasizing the commitment to that intent. i think there may be other minor technical changes recommended or need bid the attorney's office. but the substance of the program remains. we don't believe these are substa
my colleagues for that. and the last thing, mr. harrington, i think this is a good way of ending what has been a pretty incredible tenure here at the city and county of san francisco, and i am just very honored to be a part of it. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: i want to thank supervisor campos for your comments and look forward to working with you on strengthening notification to residents and making sure people understand what they're getting into. also want to thank the board for the amendment on the reserve. i think that is an important step. >> president chiu: any final discussion? take a roll call vote on the balance of item 16 and 17. >> clerk calvillo: as amended, president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. >> the clerk: there are eight ayes and three nos. >> supervisor chiu: this ordinance passed on the first reading and resolution adopted. -6r7b8g9s
for members of the public that would like to speak on this item, both items regarding mr. harrington and mr. campbell. >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization our city. i think it's all been said about general manager harrington. he knows we love him and i will just get to mike campbell and going to the three over there in the staff positions also and barbara, nancy and jason. i think one thing that none of you would commend mike for but we can as advocates is for mike and all these folks is because of the deep passion that all of the advocates have for the issue and getting it right mike and the others have been put through what can only be described as an extremely grueling process of dealing with all of our complaints and disagreements, and as you can see on the 18th we came out of this with something that everybody could live with and that is moving us forward, and mr. campbell is to be commended for going through that only what can be described as a meat grinder to get to this point and anyone
,. take care of them. [applause]. which brings us to the report of the j*e. >> mr. harrington. >> our traditional report: >> i'll note as julie is walk ugh up, she will not be here at the next meeting, we've been asked to have metropolita, watt irfolks. julie was asked to talk to their board, on the joys of building large infrastructure. >> good afternoon commissioners. there's quite a bit of love to say work, under ed, but, i'll save that for the retirement party. i don't want to get teary eyed at the meeting. i want to give you an update on the 2 issues we discussioned at the last commission meeting. on ltsz calevaras, project, the design team completing 25 additional boards. accessibility of [inaudible] the design engineer will give us their observation education by next monday. we will present the revised design to the california safety of dams. and sec cal advisory committee 2 days latter. if we do not have any major concern raised in that meeting, we will direct our contractor to start proceeding with the excavation of [inaudible]. in accordance with the design by the consu
] for item 6a, it is the extension of mr. harrington's contract to the first of september. the moving element of that was scheduling an item at the board of supervisors and that was something that we continued into september at the request of the mayor's office. we wanted to let mr. harrington here for that. that is the item before us. are there any questions or comments from the commission? moved and seconded. public comment? >> i wanted to talk about the roads. president moran: i am sorry, just a moment. >> the road conditions. president moran: let me clear this motion off the table. and we will invite you back. we have a motion and a second. public comment on that motion? all those in favor? the motion carries unanimously. thank you. >> commissioners, you are well aware that we had a bond for our roads. i attended a town hall meeting where all of the contractors came. the issue here, which has not been discussed is to fold. -- two-fold. for some reason, we have the city workers who are attached to an asphalt plant who do a lot of repairs to our roads. we also have one of the few cities who
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 103 (some duplicates have been removed)